A conservative Catholic on helping the poor

[Black_Rose]

There is certainly too much emphasis being placed on providing poor people with things pertaining to comfort, especially from lliberal catholic modernists.

The thing that I think the Catholic Church is slowly forgetting, is that the number one necessity, the number one need and desire of our souls is salvation. Money, food, shelter, cell phones, internet, and television are worthless if the person is not going to be saved. Jesus did not come into this world to provide poor people with monetary offerings. He came into this world to provide poor people with salvation. Charity is merciful, but the enforcement of morality is the most important, most merciful, foremost duty of the Church. THIS is what the main focus should be. Saving people's souls, not making their lives "comfortable" and "happy."

This is why it is more important to oppose the hallmarks of depravity, sinfulness, and lack of faith in our society, namely abortion, gay marriage, feminism, euthenasia, destruction of the family, removal of public displays of faith, etc, than it is to work for a "more fair" (which is a load of non-sense anyway) distribution of wealth.

It is not intolerant or bigoted to preach the Gospel of Christ and impose our Catholic values on society. It is merciful. If you truly have love for the least of thee, you will not sit idly by as they destroy their eternal lives with sin. Instead you will bend over backwards to reconcile that individual with Lord Jesus Christ.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=748983

This is exactly why I loathe religious people while I was an agnostic.

------
Here's some pragmatic advice (addressed to him not the members of RevLeft) for converting people (entirely religious and apolitical):

Explicitly trying to "save" people's souls through a overt evangelization effort by reciting dogma ad nauseum is a futile undertaking. Most people will find it intrusive and condescending when one tries to "convert" someone; instead, demonstrate your sincerity and kindness through your actions and attitude. Be attentive to their material concerns and acknowledge that many atheists/agnostics have respectable reasons for their disbelief and such disbelief usually is on an epistemologically legitimate foundation.

Do not remonstrate one for their sins first; just love them and worry about harmatiology (the study of sin) later. Emphasis sincerity, benevolence, and mercy in your conduct and be patient since it may take years to make an impression.

----

Of course, to get political, the attitude embodied in the quoted text is an example of the repulsive essence of conservative (or traditionalist) Christianity. I wonder how the media and culture could have nurture such cavalier indifference to the palpable suffering of other human beings.

BTW, many conservative Catholics on that particular forum actually advocate the notion that private charities should be the primary source of economic aide in modern "liberal democracies" and now they are arguing that the Church places too much emphasis on the corporeal works of mercy. This is just too risible.

[Jason]

Aside from superstition, the social message of Jesus is a very good one. But that message isn't taught by mainstream religion (because it conflicts with reactionary economic views), and it's also clouded with too much superstition.

[Comrade #138672]

This is why it is more important to oppose the hallmarks of depravity, sinfulness, and lack of faith in our society, namely X, than it is to work for a "more fair" (which is a load of non-sense anyway) distribution of wealth.Wrong. Opposing X is what makes them reactionary. The distribution of wealth, let's call it the mode of production, is more important than everything else. It is what causes all the suffering.

Of course, most Christians won't agree with this, but it is still true.

[Thirsty Crow]

Surely old Althusser is grinning in the pits of hell, with such a nice confirmation of the real character of religion, as part of the ideological state apparatus, brought out into the open.

[Red Commissar]

BTW, many conservative Catholics on that particular forum actually advocate the notion that private charities should be the primary source of economic aide in modern "liberal democracies" and now they are arguing that the Church places too much emphasis on the corporeal works of mercy. This is just too risible.

I've always found this notion funny among conservatives in general regarding charities filling these roles.

They complain about communism/socialism being against "human nature" because people don't want to share, help each other out, etc with out motivation or what ever.

But then don't see the hypocrisy in advocating charity- a completely voluntary act- as adequate for solving these things. So human nature is a problem in one... but not the other? :confused:

[Astarte]

I've always found this notion funny among conservatives in general regarding charities filling these roles.

They complain about communism/socialism being against "human nature" because people don't want to share, help each other out, etc with out motivation or what ever.

But then don't see the hypocrisy in advocating charity- a completely voluntary act- as adequate for solving these things. So human nature is a problem in one... but not the other? :confused:

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/314839_319642108156165_1676383462_n.jpg

[sixdollarchampagne]

Just as a response, and writing as a non-Catholic, but an informed person, I certainly believe that the US Catholic bishops would, without hesitation, reject the notion of "the enforcement of morality" as being the primary task of the Church. And those same US Catholic bishops would insist, as they have done, multiple times before, that the works of mercy, directed to improving the lot of the poor, are an essential mark of genuine Christianity.

Not all doctrinally conservative Christians are Republican reactionaries. To take a random example, the Catholic Worker movement, which is fully integrated into the Church, is going strong, with 201 communities in the US and about a couple of dozen communities overseas. The Catholic Workers are committed to, in their words, "a simple lifestyle in community, serv the poor, and resist[ing] war and social injustice." Furthermore, the Catholic Church has declared, from Rome, officially, that, for instance, every dollar spent on the arms race, is, in fact, stolen from the essential task of alleviating the suffering of the poor. The Vatican has straightforwardly stated its opposition to militarism and to actual wars waged by the US government. [I]Not all religion is an expression of right-wing, secular thinking. Lots of believers are motivated by a genuine concern for the poor.

[Thelonious]

[QUOTE=Jason;2572524]Aside from superstition, the social message of Jesus is a very good one.

Jesus also said stuff like this:

"Do not think I came to put peace upon the earth; I came to put, not peace, but a sword. For I came to cause division, with a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a young wife against her mother-in-law.
Matthew 10:34-35


"Everyone that has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands for the sake of my name will receive many times more and will inherit everlasting life."
Matthew 19:29


"Let house servants be in subjection to their owners with all due fear, not only to the good and reasonable, but also to those hard to please. For if someone, because of conscience toward God, bears up under grievous things and suffers unjustly, this is an agreeable thing."
1Peter 2:18-19


"Then that slave that understood the will of his master but did not get ready or do in line with his will be beaten with many strokes."
Luke 12:47


"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes and even his own soul, he cannot be my disciple."
Luke 14:26


These are just a few examples. I was forced by my family to make my first holy communion, then years later be confirmed in the Roman Catholic Church. The nuns and priests I was subjected to at Sunday school were nothing short of pure unadulterated evil. As I got older and decided to read the bible (which, ironically, is not something the Catholic Church encourages) and search out this Jesus that I was told was so spiritual and long suffering, who made the ultimate sacrifice for me, I was confronted with a miserable story of hatred, jealousy, and corruption. Of course Jesus said some nice things; but for every nice thing he said there can be found something evil that he uttered to rebut it. It was not until I abandoned Jesus, the Bible, and anything Christian, that I was able to be a self-respecting human being with a relatively normal opinion of myself and society. I do not wish to offend anyone's religion; I am only referring to my own experience with Catholicism, which was nothing short of horrendous.

[sixdollarchampagne]

I am sorry that Thelonious had terrible experiences in a church. If I may address the scripture quotes in his post, the language of strife and division that he finds off-putting in the New Testament is there, probably because the historical Jesus really was in conflict with the religious authorities of his own time and place, and also because early Christianity was competing with the Judaism of its time for converts among the Gentiles.

The rhetoric of sharp conflict, with lots of unforgiving binary choices, is characteristic of the Old Testament, I think, and some of that gets carried over to Christian scriptures.

And it is certainly true that the scriptural authors accepted the social relationships of their time, including slavery. Hence the need for radical politics, as well as theism, IMHO.

[jstrodel]

The kindest thing anyone ever did for me was have the courage to tell me how bad of a person I was and that I needed to change.

The massive amount of work that the Christian church does in taking care of the poor, in building people houses, in teaching people to be more honest in their professional lives and even in encouraging labor unions and redistribution of wealth truly is kind. But it is nothing compared with having someone deliver you from the pit of hell and give you self respect.

I think it is possible to be so strong that you actually respect people for telling you the truth.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you; rebuke a wise man and he will love you. Pr 9:8

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I am sorry that Thelonious had terrible experiences in a church. If I may address the scripture quotes in his post, the language of strife and division that he finds off-putting in the New Testament is there, probably because the historical Jesus really was in conflict with the religious authorities of his own time and place, and also because early Christianity was competing with the Judaism of its time for converts among the Gentiles.

How does that explain Luke 14:26? It seems pretty unambiguous, and also in keeping with the heavily misanthropic character of Christianity. What has hating your own life got to do with inter-religious conflict?


The rhetoric of sharp conflict, with lots of unforgiving binary choices, is characteristic of the Old Testament, I think, and some of that gets carried over to Christian scriptures.

It's also wrong. The world isn't in black and white.


And it is certainly true that the scriptural authors accepted the social relationships of their time, including slavery. Hence the need for radical politics, as well as theism, IMHO.

That "need" is external to Jesus' teachings, which include such gems as "the poor you will always have with you" and "render unto Caesar".

Christianity more often than not requires that one submit to Earthly authority as well as the ultimate cosmic tyrant that is God. The exceptions are rare and the expositionary justifications for them are tortured.

[Skyhilist]

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/314839_319642108156165_1676383462_n.jpg

What's the name of this meme btw?

[Zostrianos]

[QUOTE]Jesus also said stuff like this:
"Do not think I came to put peace upon the earth; I came to put, not peace, but a sword. For I came to cause division, with a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a young wife against her mother-in-law.
Matthew 10:34-35

"Everyone that has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands for the sake of my name will receive many times more and will inherit everlasting life."
Matthew 19:29

"Let house servants be in subjection to their owners with all due fear, not only to the good and reasonable, but also to those hard to please. For if someone, because of conscience toward God, bears up under grievous things and suffers unjustly, this is an agreeable thing."
1Peter 2:18-19

"Then that slave that understood the will of his master but did not get ready or do in line with his will be beaten with many strokes."
Luke 12:47

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes and even his own soul, he cannot be my disciple."
Luke 14:26



How does that explain Luke 14:26? It seems pretty unambiguous, and also in keeping with the heavily misanthropic character of Christianity.

You have to remember that Jesus used veiled language and parables to illustrate his points, and we know that he often didn't mean things literally. Those verses can have an number of interpretations. This is my view on them. I'm not saying I agree with all of them, but they can be interpreted thus:

Matthew 10:34-35- Jesus' teachings will not resonate with everyone, and may cause conflicts between those who adopt them and the people around them, including loved ones

Matthew 19:29 - One should be ready to sacrifice everything one holds dear here on earth for something greater

1Peter 2:18-19- Peter is a later text that does not set forth Jesus' teachings, but was probably based on the Pauline Epistles, so the verse probably means what it says

Luke 12:47- One who does not heed God's call for salvation will eventually suffer immensely.

Luke 14:26 - Again, sacrificing what one holds dear for a greater good.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You have to remember that Jesus used veiled language and parables to illustrate his points, and we know that he often didn't mean things literally.

That's actually one of my biggest problems with religious and spiritual guff - the tendency to waffle on using inexact analogies and imprecise metaphors that are just asking to be re-interpreted in ways that the original author could not even conceive of. Especially when we're talking about writings composed by those who lived in cultures that have been made surreal and alien (and dead) by the long march of history.

Fuck that shit. What's wrong with being clear and precise, unless one wants to hide the vacuity of one's positions? If there is a genuine moral precept or universal truth to be revealed, then what prevents one from expressing it in the kind of plain language which can be understood by any moderately-educated 21st century person?

When it comes to the Bible in particular, I'd say that the cultural chasm between the original authors and those living today, the centuries upon centuries of exposition, commentary, exegesis, translation and re-translation, all add up to create a volume that is too bizarre and incoherent to be any kind of truly useful "guide to life". The Bible has historical, cultural and linguistic interest most certainly, but it would not surprise me at all if there was more than one self-help book published in the last 50 years that espoused a more uplifting and life-affirming philosophy as well as being that much more relevant and clearly written.

[Astarte]

What's the name of this meme btw?

That is a good question, not really sure, I saw it via the "being socialist" group via facebook... :blushing:

[Astarte]

That's actually one of my biggest problems with religious and spiritual guff - the tendency to waffle on using inexact analogies and imprecise metaphors that are just asking to be re-interpreted in ways that the original author could not even conceive of.

Some say the reason for this is because spiritual realization is precisely that - an ineffable subjective phenomenon that transcends words - that this is why there have been so many different spiritual systems and interpretations - mostly all with the same, or many of the same core beliefs though (an ineffable god, the ability to subjectively realize god or 'enlightenment', the idea of following "the way of god" - i.e. tao, logos, dharma, even the idea of ascension is in common among many different far flung religions around the globe) actually - only all using different models and cultural references to explain the phenomenon.



Especially when we're talking about writings composed by those who lived in cultures that have been made surreal and alien (and dead) by the long march of history. I think some details are adjusted, but most of the cores remain the same - it is clear Abrahamism and especially Christianity and Islam were influenced by Zoroastrianism and Manichaeism in terms of their good/evil dualism, and that Christianity inherited a lot of ideas about ascension directly from Egyptian and Greek theology.


Fuck that shit. What's wrong with being clear and precise, unless one wants to hide the vacuity of one's positions? If there is a genuine moral precept or universal truth to be revealed, then what prevents one from expressing it in the kind of plain language which can be understood by any moderately-educated 21st century person? Because, as you said yourself above
The world isn't in black and white. But besides this, as mentioned above, there are many ideas which most major religions do at the core agree on - many groups actually have recognized this and have been quite successful at syncretizing them, such as the Unitarians and Freemasonry.


When it comes to the Bible in particular, I'd say that the cultural chasm between the original authors and those living today, the centuries upon centuries of exposition, commentary, exegesis, translation and re-translation, all add up to create a volume that is too bizarre and incoherent to be any kind of truly useful "guide to life". The Bible has historical, cultural and linguistic interest most certainly, but it would not surprise me at all if there was more than one self-help book published in the last 50 years that espoused a more uplifting and life-affirming philosophy as well as being that much more relevant and clearly written.
And hence why new spiritual systems come to the forefront of history in the first place - the framing becomes outmoded and so archaic that it begins to corrode on the ability of the core ideas to be transmitted - most or many of those core ideas, which I outlined in the first paragraph, usually carry over most assuredly.

[Thelonious]

[QUOTE]You have to remember that Jesus used veiled language and parables to illustrate his points, and we know that he often didn't mean things literally.

So what is the blueprint one can use to determine when he was speaking literally or when he was using "veiled" language? It seems that most Christians like to claim the "that is not meant to be taken literally" clause when it conveniently suits their purposes.

[Luís Henrique]

They complain about communism/socialism being against "human nature" because people don't want to share, help each other out, etc with out motivation or what ever.

I don't think this position is common among conservative Catholics, though. It sounds very much as a Calvinist thing.

Luís Henrique

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Some say the reason for this is because spiritual realization is precisely that - an ineffable subjective phenomenon that transcends words - that this is why there have been so many different spiritual systems and interpretations - mostly all with the same, or many of the same core beliefs though (an ineffable god, the ability to subjectively realize god or 'enlightenment', the idea of following "the way of god" - i.e. tao, logos, dharma, even the idea of ascension is in common among many different far flung religions around the globe) actually - only all using different models and cultural references to explain the phenomenon.

There are common themes yes, but this is because of mundane things like human psychology, for example, our tendency to see agency even when there is really none at all. Even for those coming from an irreligious upbringing, spiritual and quasi-spiritual notions abound in society and thus it is easy to understand why a lot of people claim to feel that there must be "something", whether that "something" is God, the Tao, or some vague sentiment based on whatever we happen to be ignorant about at the time.

As for the differences, those can be explained by culture, but from what I have seen most believers consider those differences to be important, otherwise why would they choose one faith over any other?


I think some details are adjusted, but most of the cores remain the same - it is clear Abrahamism and especially Christianity and Islam were influenced by Zoroastrianism and Manichaeism in terms of their good/evil dualism, and that Christianity inherited a lot of ideas about ascension directly from Egyptian and Greek theology.

Religions do not arise in a vacuum, so influences and the appropriation of concepts are inevitable. But this would occur in any case, no matter how "true" religious and spiritual ideas may or may not be.


Because, as you said yourself above

[snip quote]

But to posit a fundamental duality to reality (good/evil, God/Satan, and so on) is to do the exact opposite of recognising reality as ultimately fine-grained and multi-shaded. There's simply no room for such ambiguity if the universe is some kind of arena for the struggle of two diametrically opposed cosmic forces.


But besides this, as mentioned above, there are many ideas which most major religions do at the core agree on - many groups actually have recognized this and have been quite successful at syncretizing them, such as the Unitarians and Freemasonry.

How is this success being defined? Logical coherence? That's not the same thing as veracity.

To illustrate the importance of the differences, consider the question of the nature and/or importance of deities. A Theravada Buddhist will give a different answer to a Protestant Christian, and both of them will give a different answer to a Hellenic pagan. Even within religions, there is disagreement - look at all the theological wrangling over the Trinity.

If deities existed outside of our minds, then the real answers would be easy to come by - even unbelievers would be able to confirm the facts for themselves through empirical investigation. Praying to the right gods and/or following the right spiritual path would bring tangible benefits, even if the gods themselves and/or enlightenment remained ineffable. As things stand, the benefits wrought by religion - a sense of community and belonging, a support network of like minds, a philosophical framework and more - could just as easily come from secular sources.


And hence why new spiritual systems come to the forefront of history in the first place - the framing becomes outmoded and so archaic that it begins to corrode on the ability of the core ideas to be transmitted - most or many of those core ideas, which I outlined in the first paragraph, usually carry over most assuredly.

I don't think so. Many indigenous beliefs have been wiped out or subsumed by the more evangelising religions, delivered by imperialists and colonisers at the point of a sword or from the barrel of a gun more often than not. Was the Aztec religion "outmoded and archaic", or was it subject to eradication by Christian rivals?

[Astarte]

There are common themes yes, but this is because of mundane things like human psychology, for example, our tendency to see agency even when there is really none at all.
Conversely, the opposite can be said. Humans also have a tendency to disregard an agency or actuality when one is not immediately apparent - for example for a long time many believed the Earth was flat even though it really wasn't, so I am really not sure what your point is.


Even for those coming from an irreligious upbringing, spiritual and quasi-spiritual notions abound in society and thus it is easy to understand why a lot of people claim to feel that there must be "something", whether that "something" is God, the Tao, or some vague sentiment based on whatever we happen to be ignorant about at the time. But there is "something" owing to the fact that humanity, humanity's sciences and the instruments the sciences of humanity have created have not discovered, and do not know everything there is to know.


As for the differences, those can be explained by culture, but from what I have seen most believers consider those differences to be important, otherwise why would they choose one faith over any other? Because a. there is little exposure to outside ideas from what they have grown up with or b. As is common now in the advanced nations with the increase of knowledge the modern epoch has brought, more and more people are choosing, if they do retain a spiritual worldview, a syncretic one - these are the people who are "spiritual" but do not adhere to any particular orthodoxy.




Religions do not arise in a vacuum, so influences and the appropriation of concepts are inevitable. But this would occur in any case, no matter how "true" religious and spiritual ideas may or may not be. But to posit a fundamental duality to reality (good/evil, God/Satan, and so on) is to do the exact opposite of recognising reality as ultimately fine-grained and multi-shaded. There's simply no room for such ambiguity if the universe is some kind of arena for the struggle of two diametrically opposed cosmic forces. What is your point? I never said spirituality arises in a vacuum, because nothing really does - also what is your point in bringing up the theological incorrectness of the duality of good/evil? This is not even really a core belief. Duality, in my opinion (usually with good = the spiritual |material or chthonic = evil) is not really a universal core belief of most religions - at most I would call it a semi-core one - I'm sorry I made it sound like I considered it a core one above - I was just trying to show that in many cases even the framework of many systems are imported into new ones.




How is this success being defined? Logical coherence? That's not the same thing as veracity.
I think the success of Freemasonry is self-evident in society today ... if it wasn't for the influence of masonic ideas on the leadership of the bourgeois revolutions most of the world today would not be secular.


To illustrate the importance of the differences, consider the question of the nature and/or importance of deities. A Theravada Buddhist will give a different answer to a Protestant Christian, and both of them will give a different answer to a Hellenic pagan. Actually, this is not entirely true. Spiritual beings are a "universal core-belief" I was hoping to avoid in this conversation. The only difference is a Protestant would consider a Buddhist's and a Pagan's deities as "demons" and lesser than as well as "dharmatically" or "according to the will of God" opposed to Jehovah - their status and existence as spiritual forces rather is not what is contested.



Even within religions, there is disagreement - look at all the theological wrangling over the Trinity.
What is your point? The Trinity is not a universal "core" but actually a section of framework embedded into Christianity via older Greek and Egyptian 'trinitarian' concepts.


If deities existed outside of our minds, then the real answers would be easy to come by - even unbelievers would be able to confirm the facts for themselves through empirical investigation.
The problem with your argument is that you assume access and exposure to deities and enlightenment is universal. It seems to me your argument can also be applied in the exact opposite way - that is if deities never made their existences known there would never be any spirituality or religion, or belief in them ever at all. Yes, I am implying that some people have access to secret knowledge and some don't, just like some people learn how to drive a car, or ride a horse, and some take a little longer, or never do at all - not that the ability to experience these things is restricted, just that some are more learned than others. Conversely you are implying, by way of your argument something which actually is insulting - that those with access to the esoteric are just delusional as they apparently are deluded to such an extent to have the inability to differentiate between actual reality and fiction - since everything they know in terms of spirituality is "just going on in their heads" it must be an indication of "mental disturbance" since it does not fall in line with what is personally going on in your own head - that is, not having esoteric ideas somehow means being saner, or more in line with the actual true situation of man and reality, which is just as, if not more arrogant, and smacks of more juvenile hubris than anything I just said, or really ever could say.



Praying to the right gods and/or following the right spiritual path would bring tangible benefits, even if the gods themselves and/or enlightenment remained ineffable.
Its funny, a lot of spiritual people do feel that their life is better for it, and they can name a lot of tangible things in their lives that their spirituality has brought them - even if it is only the things which were derived from them being people who are all around more aware of their own selves and beings.


As things stand, the benefits wrought by religion - a sense of community and belonging, a support network of like minds, a philosophical framework and more - could just as easily come from secular sources. Sure, chthonic life can offer tons of pleasure, but secularism is different from atheism in that all it really implies is no religion as officialdom - I actually consider myself a "secular spiritualist", in terms of my own spirituality - I believe that is the essence of mysticism - so to that extent, I agree.



I don't think so. Many indigenous beliefs have been wiped out or subsumed by the more evangelising religions, delivered by imperialists and colonisers at the point of a sword or from the barrel of a gun more often than not. Was the Aztec religion "outmoded and archaic", or was it subject to eradication by Christian rivals?

In this post, just above, you made the point;
of recognising reality as ultimately fine-grained and multi-shaded. I completely agree with this. I believe that, actually, on a political and economic basis, the Aztec religion was outmoded, since it could not withstand brutal Spanish mercantile colonialism. Among the Aztec people though, it of course was not rendered entirely outmoded by Christianity, which is why native beliefs persisted for so very along, and still do, and a somewhat syncretistic form of Christianity formed in Latin and especially Meso-America - even commonly this type of syncretism was applied to the native religion by even Catholic theologists themselves, like Diego Duran who believed St. Thomas was the Aztec's basis for Quetzalcoatl. :lol: